Friday, August 07, 2015

Protests in Iraq

It's Friday, protests are taking place in Iraq.

Alsumaria reports that Shi'ite cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr issued instructions yesterday for his followers which included that they take part in peaceful actions and not damage private property, that they not wear military uniforms while protesting and that they not carry photos/placards/banners with photos of any political or religious official.

If everyone is supporting the protests, who are the protests against? #Iraq

39 retweets28 favorites

In the image above, the top right is Moqtada al-Sadr and below him is Ammar al-Hakim. Ammar is the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council in Iraq. If he's now supporting the protesters, that would be a big switch from his remarks earlier this week.

"If we
cannot provide enough electric power for the Iraqis, why don't the
families buy private generators?" asked an Iraqi official during a
recent press interview. It was similar to the quotation misattributed to
French Queen Marie Antoinette two hundred years ago; if the people
don't have bread, "Then let them eat cake."Again, like the French, the Iraqis revolted by igniting the uprising
in Basra. This spread around the country and this time the Iraqi leaders
could not blame the Yazidis, which they had done in the past when there
was activity in Iraq's western cities. Those who gathered in Iraq's
Tahrir and other Squares did not belong to a specific sect, race or
party. They gathered as Iraqis and expressed their anger at their rulers
who have subjected them to decades of failure, with neither justice nor
anything as mundane as new building projects. Instead, the leaders
conspired in the name of religion to loot the country's wealth and used
its resources to satisfy their evil desires and feed their obsession for
money and power.

al-Saadoun goes on to note how the Iraqi government went on to blame the
Islamic State with Ammar al-Hakim (leader of the Islamic Supreme
Council of Iraq) insisting that the protesters themselves were members
of the Islamic State. How very sad events have been for al-Hakim. His
relationship with the US has soured. He's not moved forward or higher
in the political hierarchy of Iraq. And now he's attacking the people
in a manner that recalls Nouri al-Maliki's ridiculous attacks on the
protesters.

So if Ammar is now supporting the protesters, that would actually be major news.

This morning the New York Times' Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Gordon offered "U.S. Frees Suspect in Killing of 5 G.I.'s." Martin Chulov (Guardian) covered the same story, Kim Gamel (AP) reported on it, BBC offered "Kidnap hope after Shia's handover" and Deborah Haynes contributed "Hope for British hostages in Iraq after release of Shia militant" (Times
of London). The basics of the story are this. 5 British citizens have
been hostages since May 29, 2007. The US military had in their custody
Laith al-Khazali. He is a member of Asa'ib al-Haq. He is also accused
of murdering five US troops. The US military released him and allegedly
did so because his organization was not going to release any of the
five British hostages until he was released. This is a big story and
the US military is attempting to state this is just diplomacy, has
nothing to do with the British hostages and, besides, they just released
him to Iraq. Sami al-askari told the New York Times, "This is a very
sensitive topic because you know the position that the Iraqi
government, the U.S. and British governments, and all the governments
do not accept the idea of exchanging hostages for prisoners. So we put
it in another format, and we told them that if they want to participate
in the political process they cannot do so while they are holding
hostages. And we mentioned to the American side that they cannot join
the political process and release their hostages while their leaders are
behind bars or imprisoned." In other words, a prisoner was traded for
hostages and they attempted to not only make the trade but to lie to
people about it. At the US State Dept, the tired and bored reporters
were unable to even broach the subject. Poor declawed tabbies. Pentagon
reporters did press the issue and got the standard line from the
department's spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the US handed the
prisoner to Iraq, the US didn't hand him over to any organization --
terrorist or otherwise. What Iraq did, Whitman wanted the press to know,
was what Iraq did. A complete lie that really insults the intelligence
of the American people. CNN reminds the five US soldiers killed "were:
Capt. Brian S. Freeman, 31, of Temecula, California; 1st Lt. Jacob N.
Fritz, 25, of Verdon, Nebraska; Spc. Johnathan B. Chism, 22, of
Gonzales, Louisiana; Pfc. Shawn P. Falter, 25, of Cortland, New York;
and Pfc. Johnathon M. Millican, 20, of Trafford, Alabama." Those are
the five from January 2007 that al-Khazali and his brother Qais
al-Khazali are supposed to be responsible for the deaths of. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert H. Reid (AP) states
that Jonathan B. Chism's father Danny Chism is outraged over the
release and has declared, "They freed them? The American military did?
Somebody needs to answer for it."

Remember that the next time Barack claims the US government does not negotiate with terrorists.

The protests are attracting a lot of attention in Iraq.

Last Saturday, Iraq's prime minister dubbed them a "warning sign." Looks like he's facing more warning signs today. All Iraq News notes, "The Supreme Religious Authority said that Prime Minister, Haider
al-Abadi, has to avoid the partisan confesionalism and uncover those who
hinder reforms." And they note, "The Supreme Religious Authority called Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi,
to cancel all former and current key officials' privileges."

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.